Is there a burden of questioning?

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 1-43

  Walton, Douglas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WINNIPEG   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; FORMAL LANGUAGES; FORMAL LOGIC; INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROBLEM SOLVING;

ABSTRACT MODELS; COMPUTATIONAL DIALECTICAL SYSTEMS; RATIONAL ARGUMENTATION;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 1242285593     PISSN: 09248463     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:ARTI.0000013333.96215.a9     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Barth, Else M. and Krabbe, Erik C. W. (1982). From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin.
2. Bench-Capon, T. (1997). Argument in Artificial Intelligence and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5: 249-261.
3. DeMorgan, A. (1926). Formal Logic. The Open Court Company: London. Reprint of the original Taylor and Walton edition of 1847.
4. Dube, F. (2002). Judge Criticizes 'Hired Gun' Experts. National Post (Canada), November 18, 2002, Al and A5.
5. Fox, J. and Das, S. (2000). Safe and Sound: Artificial Intelligence in Hazardous Applications. MIT Press: Menlo Park, CA.
6. Feteris, E. (1999). Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. Foris: Dordrecht.
7. Frank, J. (1963). Courts on Trial. Atheneum: New York.
8. Gordon, Thomas F. (1995). The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
9. Hage, J. (2000). Dialectical Models in Artificial Intelligence and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8: 137-172.
10. Hage, Jaap C., Leenes, Ronald and Lodder, Arno R. (1994). Hard Cases: A Procedural Approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2: 113-167.
11. Hamblin, Charles L. (1970). Fallacies. Methuen: London.
12. Hamblin, Charles L. (1971). Mathematical Models of Dialogue. Theoria 37: 130-155
13. Hastings, Arthur C. (1963). A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Ph.D. diss., Evanston, IL
14. Hoenig, M. (2002). Products Liability: Jury Rejection of Uncontradicted Expert Testimony. New York Law Journal 228: 3-6.
15. Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Fromman-Holzboog: Stuttgart.
16. Krabbe, Erik C. W. (1996). Can We Ever Pin One Down to a Formal Fallacy? In Johan van Benthem, Frans H. van Eemeren and Frank Veltman (eds.) Logic and Argumentation, 129-141. North-Holland: Amsterdam.
17. Krabbe, Erik C. W. (2001). The Problem of Retraction in Critical Discussion. Synthese 127: 141-159.
18. Lodder, Arno R. (1999). Dialaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
19. Loui, Ronald P. (1998). Process and Policy: Resource-Bounded Nondemonstrative Reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14: 1-38.
20. Mackenzie, J. (1981). The Dialectics of Logic. Logique et Analyse 94: 159-177.
21. Mackenzie, J. (1990). Four Dialogue Systems. Studia Logica 49: 567-583.
22. Park, Roger C., Leonard, David P., and Goldberg, Steven H. (1998). Evidence Law. West Group: St. Paul, MI.
23. Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1971). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. In J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver (trans.), 2nd edn, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1971 (First published, as La Nouvelle Rhetorique, in 1958).
24. Pollock, John L. (1995). Cognitive Carpentry. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
25. Prakken, H. (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
26. Prakken, H. (2001). Relating Protocols for Dynamic Dispute with Logics for Defeasible Argumentation. Synthese 127: 187-219.
27. Prakken, H. (2002). Models of Dispute Resolution: A Formal Framework and an Application. preprint at www.cs.uu.nl/staif/henry.html, 1-69.
28. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1997). Argument-based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7: 25-75.
29. Reed, C. and Walton, D. (2001). Applications of Argumentation Schemes. In Proceedings of the OSSA Meeting.
30. Reed, C. and Walton, D. (2002). Diagramming, Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions. In Proceedings of the ISSA Conference.
31. Safer, Jay G. (2002). Evolving Standards on Expert Witnesses. New York Law Journal 228: s4-s12.
32. Twining, W. (1985). Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore. Weidenfeld and Nicolson: London.
33. van Eemeren, Frans H. and Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation 1: 283-301.
34. van Eemeren, Frans H. and Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.
35. Verheij, B. (1996). Rules, Reasons, Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat. Doctoral diss., University of Maastricht.
36. Walton, Douglas N. (1984). Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies. University Press of America: Lanham, MD.
37. Walton, Douglas N. (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa.
38. Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.
39. Walton, D. (1998). The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. University of Toronto Press: Toronto.
40. Walton, D. (2002). Legal Argumentation and Evidence. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.
41. Walton, Douglas N. and Krabbe, Erik C. W. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press: Albany.
42. Wigmore, John H. (1931). The Principles of Judicial Proof. 2nd edn, Little, Brown and Company: Boston.
43. Woods, J., Irvine, A., and Walton, D. (2000). Argument: Critical Thinking, Logic and the Fallacies. Prentice Hall: Toronto.